WorldNetDaily.com | Bob Unruh | May 24, 2007
Bill threatens references to ‘mom,’ ‘dad’ at school
In a move with national implications, California’s state Senate passed a bill today that establishes a new definition for “sex,” threatens references to “mom” and “dad” and could restrict the presentation of scientific evidence to students.
Wall Street Opinion Journal | Wndy Kaminer | May 23, 2007
The ACLU is becoming very selective about what it considers “free” speech.
“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.
Christian Science Monitor | John Hughes | May 16, 2007
Provo, Utah
When the Bush administration took the United States to war in Iraq, a primary motivation was to neutralize Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. They turned out not to exist.
But another ambition of the president was to spread democracy in the Middle East, which somehow seemed to have been bypassed in the global march to liberty during the past four decades. Iraq after Mr. Hussein was supposed to become a democratic touchstone for other Arab lands.
Wall Street Journal | Bernard Lewis | May 16, 200
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won’t change their view.
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?”
THe Weekly Standard
|Christina Hoff Sommers | May 14, 2007
The subjection of women in Muslim societies–especially in Arab nations and in Iran–is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.
Notes from the Underground | Dn. Stephen Hayes | April 27, 2007
This post is from the concluding chapter of my thesis on “Orthodox mission methods”, submitted in 1998. I have posted it mainly as a follow-up to the previous post and comments, especially the comments by Phil Johnson, on monasticism and utilitarianism.
Townhall.com | Frank Pastore | May 6, 2007
Their titles sound so confident:
• The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam by Michel Onfray.
Townhall.com | Ken Connor | May 6, 2007
For quite some time in America, frank public discussions about candidates’ religious views have been deemed verboten. The trend began in 1960, when John F. Kennedy found that his Catholic faith was proving to be a liability with Protestant voters. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to run for president since Al Smith’s landslide defeat in the 1920s, and throughout the campaign he met significant resistance from detractors who were deeply suspicious of the Catholic faith. Hundreds of anti-Catholic tracts were sent to millions of homes across America discouraging voters from supporting Kennedy. Many refused to vote for the young Senator from Massachusetts because they did not agree with his religious beliefs, and this created a crisis for the campaign.
Townhall.com Janice Shaw Crouse April 17, 2007
Jim Wallis has devoted his whole career to trying to force the round peg of leftist ideology into the square hole of biblical orthodoxy. When he wrote his “vision” designed to “transcend” the ideologies of the religious left and right, he ended up further polarizing instead of unifying the two evangelical movements. He rails against the “political language” of the right as well as the tendency of conservative evangelicals, in his opinion, to claim their use of scripture as authoritative. In so doing, Wallis hoists himself on his own petard.
